list_assignment_groups

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns group weights and that IDs are usable for assignment creation/updates, but it does not mention pagination, authentication, or any limitations. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but without explicit statement, the transparency is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and includes a key usage note, making every sentence earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential information: what is listed, that weights are included, and how the IDs are used. It lacks explicit detail on the exact return fields, but given the simplicity and purpose, it is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameters (course_id as 'Canvas course ID'), so the description does not need to add param details. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter, and the description offers no additional semantic value for it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'assignment groups (grading categories) in a course with their weights', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_assignments. It also explains the downstream use case (returned IDs used as assignment_group_id), making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool by noting that the returned group IDs are used when creating or updating assignments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.